The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-7631•Eric Joseph Depaola v. BRADLEY TAYLOR, Corrections Officer
11-7631Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 27, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7631
ERIC JOSEPH DEPAOLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRADLEY TAYLOR, Corrections Officer; MARK D. MULLINS,
Corrections Sergeant; LAFAYETTE FLEMING, Corrections
Lieutenant; STACY MULLINS, Corrections Captain; TONY ADAMS,
Corrections Institutional Investigator; STANLEY, Corrections
Officer, Unknown; CHRISTOPHER DUTTON, Corrections Officer;
TRACY S. RAY, Warden; BRADLEY RAMEY, Corrections Officer;
MICHAEL PHIPPS, Corrections Officer; BRANDON ROBERTS,
Corrections officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:10-cv-00398-SGW-PMS)
Submitted: March 13, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Joseph DePaola, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Joseph DePaola appeals the district court’s
orders granting the Defendants summary judgment in part on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and entering judgment pursuant
to the jury’s verdict in favor of the Defendants. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, DePaola
v. Taylor, No. 7:10-cv-00398-SGW-PMS (W.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2011),
and deny DePaola’s motion for production of a transcript at the
Government’s expense. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.